I for one believe his heart is in the right direction. While I agree mistakes have been made, President Bush says things and does it. I believe he is a true dedicated leader. You know, we look back on Presidents such as Nixon, Carter, and Grant - and how people disagreed at the time with things they did. Now we look back and study what they've done and how those bad things contributed to the way we live today. I forsee no difference with Bush. A president heavely disliked and in who knows 50..100 years from now - will be looked back on through doing the right thing. Anyone else feel this way?
2007-07-26 06:23:23 · 18 answers · asked by Facing Worlds 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Okay just don't forget we have had many presidents in the past during the time of war that were unsupported and the things that they died contributed to the well being of this country many years later.
2007-07-26 06:28:18 · update #1
Bush has done the right thing by engaging an enemy on foreign soil and not allowing the battle to proliferate on our mainland. This war will not be won battle by battle but rather by offering a change of ideology to those who are at risk of falling prey to the fanatic Muslim extremists. It will not be a quick process.
2007-07-26 06:45:40 · answer #1 · answered by The Real America 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No and yes. Yes in the sense that the general principals of most of what he's tried to do are good and sound.
No in the sense that he's done such a bad job administering that it might have been better to never even try.
As an example;
Let's say you find a charity that supports and address some things you feel deeply about. So you get behind and give it your support. Later you find out the charity only sends about 5-10% of your contrabutions toward those issues. So you do some research hoping to contribute elsewhere. Unfotunilty no other charity adrress these issues. So what do you do? Watch most your money get wasted but hope the 5-10% does something or do you bail out?
Now that charity is Bush and his administration. His heart my be in the right place but he's done such a poor job making things happen it probably doesn't matter.
2007-07-26 14:20:31 · answer #2 · answered by Phil K 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it's not always popular to do the right thing. just look at the divorce rate. i agree with what you're saying. i think a lot can be contributed to the lack of communication. and that doesn't mean i want to know more, quite the opposite. i KNOW there are things i do not NEED to know. but we all must admit, he has communicated to the public very poorly on the issues of Iraq and terrorism. a couple little talks with the public would have been easy, and he'd have gotten a lot of mileage out of them. and REALLY, how much is there to complain about besides Iraq?
2007-07-26 13:32:24 · answer #3 · answered by daddio 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Actually, most people still see Nixon as being the crook he was. And Grant, though well-intentioned, had one of the most corrupt administrations in our history. I have studied history for over a decade, and I can pretty safely say that Nixon and Grant are not looked upon very favorably in most circles. Carter, neither, but under the circumstances I doubt anyone else could have done better. What you seem to be doing is mistaking the respect that Nixon and Carter garnered AFTER their presidencies as proof that their presidencies themselves were successful, which simply is not true. Who knows? If Bush helps the poor and builds houses for the homeless after he is president, maybe people WILL pretend like he was a great president... but it won't be historians.
2007-07-26 13:30:14 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
I disagree with your assessment, primarily because I do believe that the road to Hell is paved with good intention -- in this case, intention to do well for Big Business.
That said, I understand your viewpoint, and although I think history will be very unkind (and rightfully so) to our current "president," it may very well embrace him as a good leader.
2007-07-26 13:42:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
if bush cared about doing the right thing, he would be investing in alternative energy sources, and stop pandering to the saudis.
he does the opposite, to keep the military contracts going, and so he doesn't have to deal with the withdrawal during his tenure.
why do you think he bought land in Paraguay? He's too stupid to know that Hague may be in his future, so his advisers probably clued the poor b*****d in, maybe they want refuge too.
2007-07-26 13:41:11 · answer #6 · answered by spillmind 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Except that he is fighting a sterile war in order to appease the left and in order to win we need to take the gloves off and fight the way we did in WWI, WWII etc. When fighting savages, sometimes you need to be a little savage. If we lose it wont be because of the enemy, it will be because of ourselves and our unwillingness to fight a war to win.
2007-07-26 13:32:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
" Mistakes have been made." That phrase caused me problems the 1st time I heard it. Still has the same effect. I stand by your right to believe what you will. Good luck.
2007-07-26 13:31:58 · answer #8 · answered by gone 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I think that Bush has done the right thing in Iraq and that if he had not acted we would be under constant fear of terrorist bombings and such.
Bush kept the war over their instead of letting it come here.
2007-07-26 13:29:18 · answer #9 · answered by T-22<> 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
What thing are you referring to? He does some things right, some things wrong.
2007-07-26 13:53:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋